He can have whatever opinion he wants to as far as I am concerned. But to go to this ceremony, one handled by a prestigious and giving institution, where media was present, and say this? He has got be a huge jerk (mind you, that is not the first word that came to mind).

I don't deny that he's a bit of a burke.

And that's what I forgot to say. There's absolutely every right for you to feel like this, there's no reason for you to have to listen to him.

One person I know studies history at university, the first thing he was told when he arrived was that he was almost guaranteed to be a better historian than the people teaching him. Why? It's easier to be objective when you aren't around during or close to the time of the incident.

It's natural that you will have a fairer, and ultimately better opinion than the generations before.

It comes back to what I said before. Dark times like that can really influence people living through them. Their opinions get demented, but they can't help it. They care too much about being right.

Re: Look, you know, our draws are not rigged they are just unlikely. (pt2)

Also, I think that flying the flag at half mast after Hitler's death while in bad taste, is so minor in comparison what happened in that time from every country that it's hardly worth bringing up and a little laughable. It's sort of like -- Is that all you've got?

And that's what I forgot to say. There's absolutely every right for you to feel like this, there's no reason for you to have to listen to him.

One person I know studies history at university, the first thing he was told when he arrived was that he was almost guaranteed to be a better historian than the people teaching him. Why? It's easier to be objective when you aren't around during or close to the time of the incident.

It's natural that you will have a fairer, and ultimately better opinion than the generations before.

It comes back to what I said before. Dark times like that can really influence people living through them. Their opinions get demented, but they can't help it. They care too much about being right.

He's congratulating himself a little too much I think. Yes, it is easier to be "objective" when you haven't had family and friends dead in the war, but it's also perhaps more difficult to enter into the mind and feelings of those making decisions so it's easy to judge them unfairly.

And that's what I forgot to say. There's absolutely every right for you to feel like this, there's no reason for you to have to listen to him.

One person I know studies history at university, the first thing he was told when he arrived was that he was almost guaranteed to be a better historian than the people teaching him. Why? It's easier to be objective when you aren't around during or close to the time of the incident.

It's natural that you will have a fairer, and ultimately better opinion than the generations before.

It comes back to what I said before. Dark times like that can really influence people living through them. Their opinions get demented, but they can't help it. They care too much about being right.

Also, I think that flying the flag at half mast after Hitler's death while in bad taste, is so minor in comparison what happened in that time from every country that it's hardly worth bringing up and a little laughable. It's sort of like -- Is that all you've got?

I really wonder if this guy could ever be an Ambassador in Germany

I am not saying that him remembering and bearing in mind this unfortunate fact about my country is wrong. It isn't. I probably would too if I were him. It's ok. But what he did with it, it's beyond absurd. I wish I was there.

He's congratulating himself a little too much I think. Yes, it is easier to be "objective" when you haven't had family and friends dead in the war, but it's also perhaps more difficult to enter into the mind and feelings of those making decisions so it's easy to judge them unfairly.

That's true to an extent, but I don't think it covers all the angles.

Information is difficult to lose. First off, even if we had no written documents in history, a considerable amount of information would be fed down from generation to generation by word of mouth.

If you go into a situation, with a completely empty and open mind, it's very difficult to get the wrong end of the stick, assuming you get fed the relevant information. Besides, in response to your point about entering the mind of those involved, as we advance as a race, we get better at empathising, especially as we can interpret the information objectively. I don't think one instantly loses the ability to empathise with those people, the moment that it becomes history.

Information is difficult to lose. First off, even if we had no written documents in history, a considerable amount of information would be fed down from generation to generation by word of mouth.

If you go into a situation, with a completely empty and open mind, it's very difficult to get the wrong end of the stick, assuming you get fed the relevant information. Besides, in response to your point about entering the mind of those involved, as we advance as a race, we get better at empathising, especially as we can interpret the information objectively. I don't think one instantly loses the ability to empathise with those people, the moment that it becomes history.

Each generation has its own barriers to objectivity.

The new generation normally thinks it has the better perspective than the old one. In a few years some grad student will smugly think that his generation knows more too.

Allow me to clarify what my point is, and what it only is. People from later generations are less likely to have their judgement clouded when it comes to an unfortunate and cruel historical happening.

The thing about knowledge is irrelevant.

I understand your reasoning.

I'm simply not sure it's correct. There may be some instances where it is correct and others where it is incorrect. Every generation has its own biases. Each generation will think it has the correct perspective.

I say this because I've seen several revisions of history in my life time. I've seen the history, the revision, then the revision of the revision etc. etc. It goes on and on. I don't have a problem with it because I learn more all the time.

It's hard to say that you have knowledge of false things. Is that really knowledge?

I think my understanding of things is enriched by each version of history I read.

History is hardly science. I would think if I wanted to concentrate on hard facts, I'd go into science -- although even there things one thinks are "facts" sometimes turn out not to be.